This isn't my point. My point is the GP said this has been forecasted for many years now so people stopped paying attention. However, these talks with other nations ARE new and were highly stressed as important to avoid war. That hasn't been the case for years now.
It was forecast for many years, the question many have is why it took as long as it did, I'm still not sure about that. I think it was maybe because Putin was counting on Trump winning re-election that he thought he had plenty of time.
As for the talks:
They were instrumental in getting away with the attacks, Putin played that for all it was worth, taking a leaf right out of Hitlers playbook.
I don't see what is unhinged about it: it was a pretty closely contested election and it could have easily happened. Which would give Putin a chance to do this without any fear of interference. Brexit certainly helped him as well.
So you're still pushing the crazy conspiracy theory that Trump was Putin's puppet?
The more likely explanation is, IMO, that Trump was just unhinged enough to actually do something, unlike the mellow Biden, who'll obviously just sit and wait (or, well, sleep).
Trump praised Putin at every turn (even did that again today and called the invasion "smart"). Went against NATO. Had closed door meetings and got rid of the transcripts. Asked that the US ambassador to Ukraine be fired. Wanted dirt on Biden in exchange for releasing the (congress-approved) military aid to Ukraine. And so on. An entire book could be written on this based only on public information.
Trump has an anti-war, contain the bully platform.
He introduced new sanctions for Iran and killed one of their highest ranking officers. Precision strikes instead of wasteful wars.
Turkey and SA are US allies, Trump just continued that long-standing policy, as does Biden.
> And even if you don’t believe that, Trump is currently okay with the invasion.
Quote? Trump said Putin's "pretty smart", which, judging by their progress towards Kyiv, and the lack of response by the West, well, you can't say it's not smart (at least in the short term... long term, remains to be seen).
For you and parent commentator: the topic of the thread is Ukraine's invasion by Russian imperial forces.
Let us not devolve into the Rorschach test that is Trump's administration and our personal interpretations. It serves no purpose but to feed relative trolls.
> I don't appreciate the gratuitous insult that we can't objectively discuss the actions of a past president.
Regardless of any point made on the subject, what one side considers objective, the other side considers biased and tainted. Your rejoinder on the existential insult (though a consequence of human nature) is noted -- and your wish shared that we could exist with any real semblance of objectivity. We primates aren't objective creatures when it comes to arguments that at least one side has turned its axioms into articles of faith.
For the record, I expect we agree substantively on an analysis of Trump's presidency, both in terms of motivations, outcomes, and impacts.
